But "illegal activities" sounds like it refers to circumventing DMCA, which implies that Dave's content is copyrighted (owned) ... by Youtube.

The strike isn't for violating the DMCA, it was apparently for having the gall to actually mention a method that people could use to download a copy of YouTube videos. It seems that disseminating information like that has been ruled by their magical "AI" algorithm to be against YouTube rules.

Breaking Youtube terms does not make something illegal -- against the law.

I don't think they would use the term so loosely. That would be idiotic and just plain wrong.

Using 3rd party software to circumvent measures designed to protect IP, however, is considered (in the USA) to be illegal, unless allowed by fair use rights. Dave being Australian ... I don't know what that does.

Using 3rd party software to circumvent measures designed to protect IP, however, is considered (in the USA) to be illegal, unless allowed by fair use rights. Dave being Australian ... I don't know what that does.

Except youtube provide a means to download videos themselves, it's part of Youtube Premium.So IP violation isn't the issue, as Youtube themselves provide a method to do just that.

Youtube have banned Dave for making livestreams, simply because he was demonstrating an alternative to their paid service.

They have also cracked down on anyone making videos promoting/mentioning alternatives to youtube like Twitch.Upload a video titled "watch my livestream on twitch" and watch it get deleted.

Youtube have lost the plot, and gotten into the murky area of anti competitive behavior and censorship of content for no reason.This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.

Although I had to look up what YouTube Premium is and apparently it's a rebranding of YouTube Red.So after all these years, they finally thought that maybe calling it like a porn site was not the best name.

Youtube have banned Dave for making livestreams, simply because he was demonstrating an alternative to their paid service.

They have also cracked down on anyone making videos promoting/mentioning alternatives to youtube like Twitch.Upload a video titled "watch my livestream on twitch" and watch it get deleted.

Youtube have lost the plot, and gotten into the murky area of anti competitive behavior and censorship of content for no reason.This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.

So if Dave live streams separate content outside of Youtube whilst banned on youtube from live streaming there and on other platforms, he leaves no announcement on Youtube that he is live streaming elsewhere and youtube finds out, they can shut the channel down.

Youtube have banned Dave for making livestreams, simply because he was demonstrating an alternative to their paid service.

They have also cracked down on anyone making videos promoting/mentioning alternatives to youtube like Twitch.Upload a video titled "watch my livestream on twitch" and watch it get deleted.

Youtube have lost the plot, and gotten into the murky area of anti competitive behavior and censorship of content for no reason.This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.

So if Dave live streams separate content outside of Youtube whilst banned on youtube from live streaming there and on other platforms, he leaves no announcement on Youtube that he is live streaming elsewhere and youtube finds out, they can shut the channel down.

It just sounds like blackmail to me.

Certainly anti competitive behavior.They probably best watch their backs if the legislators get wind of it.

I don't get it why Google strikes for explaining how to download a Youtube video, when the first Google search link links exactly to a site where you can do this.

Just because it exists on the internet, it doesn't mean Google is OK with it. They don't want it on THEIR platform. Censoring search results is prickly territory, even though they do it already to some degree.

OK so if you pay for premium, then maybe you are buying some limited rights to it. And even then, it might be locked by some kind of DRM. It's the same as illegally downloading music, versus buying it on iTunes.

Breaking Youtube terms does not make something illegal -- against the law.I don't think they would use the term so loosely. That would be idiotic and just plain wrong.Using 3rd party software to circumvent measures designed to protect IP, however, is considered (in the USA) to be illegal, unless allowed by fair use rights. Dave being Australian ... I don't know what that does.

Youtube do not own the content, they only have a license to use it. Therefore they cannot sue you for copyright infringement, that's up to the owner of the content. All they can do it terminate your account based on their ToS.

It is always hard to argue about the definition of Terms of Service while actually appealing the strike itself.The pattern matched a definition of some sort and the punishment is to disable features on the platform for the punished account.

I agree that it is a ridiculous and very narrow sighted decision in this case, otoh those people are paid for cases per hour and rather have the punishment hit too many accounts than too few. Why? Because the next case might argue that there are other videos with similar content that were never punished albeit reported for doing the same. Blocking a feature for 3 months isn´t the end of the world, but removes the foundation for bad actors to argue on. Not the worst outcome from the perspective of a paid community moderator, ridiculous when looked at in detail, anyhow, the definition of TOS for the individual user is probably impossible to argue on with the moderators. You would need a petition or other leverage to actually do something about it at a higher instance.

Therefore the membership duration or amount of subscribers of the channel has a lower priority than most might think, i mean the biggest channels made huge mistakes / tested the borders and that caused lots of problems to the platform. Those were imho more or less trolling by personality / type of channel, and will probably continue to do so, but no one measures that.

Those cases also mean that these factors do not help with the decision, or have special set of rules above a certain amount of subscribers/membership duration/amount of videos.

My biggest concern about the commercial aspect of youtube is that creators are more or less employees (somewhat dependent in a similar fashion), without being called so, without the duties, but also without the associated rights.

Youtube do not own the content, they only have a license to use it. Therefore they cannot sue you for copyright infringement, that's up to the owner of the content. All they can do it terminate your account based on their ToS.

It's important here to make a distinction. Copyright infringement -- using somebody else's copyrighted work to make money -- is one thing. There might be different laws in play here. The act of circumventing copyright protection measures (eg downloading content) is, in itself illegal, thanks to DMCA.

And if that's not the case, then I would ask them what is "illegal" about the depicted activities. Or are they simply trying silly scare tactics.